DeepMark

Update Mark Scheme

markScheme_update

Idempotent

Update an existing mark scheme by its ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The unique identifier for the mark scheme to update
`content`	No	The full mark scheme content text (level descriptors, caps, guidance, etc.)
`mark_points`	No	Array of mark points
`points_total`	No	Total number of points for the mark scheme
`marking_method`	No	How to mark: deterministic (MCQ), point_based, or level_of_response

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`updated`	Yes	Names of the fields written by this call.
`question_id`	Yes
`points_total`	Yes
`mark_scheme_id`	Yes
`mark_point_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action; it does not clarify partial vs. full update, error handling, or overwrite behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence: 'Update an existing mark scheme by its ID.' No wasted words; action, resource, and scope are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is minimal but paired with a detailed schema and annotations. However, it lacks clarity on update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement, what happens if ID not found), so it is adequate but has gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, hence the baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (update), the resource (mark scheme), and the scope (existing, by ID). It distinguishes from siblings like 'paper_create' and 'question_update'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: it updates existing mark schemes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as referencing paper_create for new mark schemes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DeepMark tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools map well to distinct resources and workflow stages, and the async flows are clearly explained. The main overlap risk is paper_create/paper_confirm and markResult_get/submission_get, where names point at similar actions but the descriptions make the boundaries usable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow the same resource_action snake_case pattern, e.g. paper_get, submission_mark, markScheme_update. markResult_get breaks the pattern slightly by mixing camelCase into an otherwise snake_case set, but the naming stays readable and predictable overall.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is a well-scoped size for this domain: paper creation, confirmation, retrieval, question/mark-scheme correction, and submission grading are covered without excess granularity or obvious filler.

Completeness4/5

The main end-to-end workflow—create extraction job, confirm paper, mark submission, poll results—is complete and coherent. Minor gaps exist, such as no paper deletion, no submission listing, and no direct way to fetch a mark scheme separately, but they are not blocking for the core grading loop.

Resources

Need Help?